This content is inappropriate

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:

Should South Dakota Pass the Abortion Ban?

In 1973, the Supreme Court made one of its most controversial decisions, declaring most anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. Now on November 4th, the people of South Dakota will head to the polls to vote on a proposed statewide abortion ban. With emotions running high on both sides, how should abortion be legislated in tomorrow’s America? (Editor's Note: On November 4th, South Dakota voters rejected Measure 11 to ban abortion.)

Next question in Abortion

You are seeing 3 Comments. See all 41 Comments on this Question.

Regarding Comment

Debate misses the key point

Life or personhood

I think you're thinking of personhood, because there is simply no question about whether or not you are ending a life. I think the issue comes when dealing with what defines personhood before you can get to whether or not an embryo has an interest in remaining alive.

Then, IF you establish that it does have that interests, you'd have to determine if it should have a right to protect that interest. Only then would it be clear that any point before that, the cells cannot have an interest, and aborting the pregnancy is an amoral issue. For any point after that, you'd have to determine under what circumstances a pregnant woman, who clearly has a fundamental interest in remaining alive (and rights to life), would be allowed to infringe upon the interest of that embryo in order to do so. This is clearly an issue of morality.

Because, if it's determined that a fetus has interests, and we know that a grown woman has interests, and both lives are in danger, whose right will be violated? Who makes that decision? I suppose it would be put to a medical triage of sorts.

There are no other interests that rise above the one to live, so any infringement on this would be immoral. One would have to prove that a fetus has interests (which I don't believe can happen until there is a central nervous system), and we've got a moral issue. Otherwise, it's not even really a valid debate.

- mike October 16, 2008 7:30AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Life vs. personhood
  
  Mike said "I think you're thinking of personhood, because there is simply no question about whether or not you are ending a life. ".
  
  Yes, I was referring to "personhood" throughout my post.
  
  The idea of "life" in and of itself is not important to this debate. This sound's strange, I know, but many things are "alive" that as a society we have no compunctions about killing. Many animals for food, insects as pests, skin cells when we scrape our knee. All of these things are alive, but killing them is (for most of us) not controversial. We even let people die when they are in a vegetative state (most of the time).
  
  So "life" is not the standard for the debate on abortion. The standard must be HUMAN life, which I treat as synonymous with "personhood". With respect to a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus, the question is When does it become a person? Certainly not at conception, by my way of thinking. Possibly not until birth. Arguably sometime in between.
  
  But aside from chronological definitions, the acquisition of higher consciousness characteristic of humans from birth onward is my functional definition. I just don't know when that happens. And since no one else does either, we should leave up to each of us.
  
  Sid
  
  - SidAirfoil October 16, 2008 1:38PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - A slippery slope.
    
    Thanks for clarifying. Currently, in Colorado, USA, there is an attempt to constitutionally define "personhood" as starting from conception. To me, this is a silly notion.
    
    But on the flip side, it's a dangerous thing to base an argument on "I just don't know when that happens. And since no one else does either, we should leave up to each of us."
    
    I'd rather apply hard science and err on the side of not generating needless suffering. There has to be a point where nociceptors are up and running. At that point, a fetus has a clear interest in not being injured and killed. I don't know where that point is, and it sounds like you don't either, but that should not justify making potential inflicting of pain and death a "personal" choice.
    
    At the same time, do I think this decision should start with legislation? Nah. I think that, as I feel with most big ethically-based laws, the moral majority should make that happen. And that won't happen until we have more information, more education, and some effective methods of planning, protection, and prevention in regards to human reproduction.
    
    - mike October 16, 2008 2:47PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.